2015 (12) TMI 314 - HC - Customs

DEPB Benefit - Opportunity of hearing not granted - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Even otherwise, on a perusal of the order of the Commissioner it does not appear that this is such a case which should be dealt with by the High Court in exercise of its Article 226 jurisdiction. Particularly so, because intricate questions of facts are involved. The case against the petitioner is that through various machinations he tried to inflate the purchase price, fabricate documents etc. for the purpose of getting extra DEPB benefit. - The matter should be tried before the Tribunal. - Matter remanded back - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Writ petition against order of Commissioner of Customs, principles of natural justice, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226, Tribunal's power to review hearing opportunity, appeal process, pre-deposit requirement, timeline for appeal disposal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, West Bengal, Kolkata, dated 30th April, 2013. The petitioner did not opt for the alternative remedy of appealing before the Tribunal, citing lack of notice and opportunity to participate as a violation of natural justice, thus invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 directly. The Commissioner accused the petitioner of attempting to evade departmental proceedings. The Court acknowledged the Tribunal's authority to review if the petitioner was granted a fair hearing before the order was issued, suggesting that the matter should ideally be dealt with by the Tribunal due to complex factual issues involved.

The Court emphasized that the case involves intricate factual questions, such as alleged price inflation and document fabrication for obtaining extra DEPB benefit, which should be examined by the Tribunal. The judgment directed that if an appeal is filed before the Tribunal by a specified date, the appeal would be accepted without strict adherence to technicalities like limitation. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the petitioner received adequate notice before the Commissioner's order, with instructions to remand the matter back if notice was insufficient. If notice was deemed adequate, the Tribunal would proceed to hear the appeal on its merits within a stipulated timeframe.

In a departure from the usual requirement of pre-deposit, the Court allowed the appeal to be heard without necessitating any upfront payment in the specific circumstances of the case. Lastly, the judgment mandated the Tribunal to issue a reasoned order within three months from the date of the decision, ensuring a timely resolution of the appeal. Certified copies of the order would be provided to the parties upon fulfilling the necessary formalities.